I APPEAL# PART C Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the ministry's reconsideration decision of January 30 1 ", 2012 wherein the ministry denied the appellant hardship assistance under Section 42.1(1) Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) because the ministry did not consider that if hardship assistance was not provided the physical health of a person in the family unit will be in imminent danger as stated in Section 42.1 (2) EAPWDR. PART D Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR), Section 42.1 EAAT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL# PART E -Summarv of Facts The facts before the ministry at the time of reconsideration were: • Request for reconsideration dated January 15 th , 2012; • Medical Report -Employability completed by appellant's medical practitioner (MP) dated 11-10-20; • Letter from MP dated November 29 th , 2011 outlining the appellant's medical conditions/problems. In 2009 the appellant was convicted of Fraud over $5,000 under Section 380(1 )(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada and as such, a lifetime sanction under Section 14 of Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA) was placed on the appellant's file stating the appellant's family unit is not eligible for disability assistance. On October 11, 2011 the MP completed a Medical Report Employability form on the appellant which indicated the appellant's medical conditions were chronic back pain and chronic shoulder pain and these conditions were severe. The MP commented that the appellant's restriction to employment is "restricted movement in spine". The MP undated this report in a letter dated November 29 th , 2011 stating the appellant's medical conditions were Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus requires daily monitoring of blood sugars and have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease; Morbid Obesity possible candidate for bariatric surgery but there is a 4 year wait for surgery and due to appellant's weight is unable to exercise; Chronic Bilateral Shoulder pain/tendonitis chronic pain in shoulders; and Essential Hypertension -suffered with disease for years but is compliant with medication. This is a written hearing. The appellant submitted the following documents to the Tribunal for consideration. 1. 6 pages of bank documents on the spouse's account for period November 1 st , 2011 to March 5 th , 2012; 2. 2 pages a medical expense report (single page) for period of January 1 st , 2012 to March 5 th , 2012 in appellant's name and the spouse's name. 3. Government of Canada T 4A Information slip for year 2011 in the name of appellant's spouse. The panel accepts these documents as evidence as they do contain information in support of the appellant's argument respecting imminent danger and hardship relating to medical costs which is in support of the information and record that was before the ministry at the time of reconsideration. The panel finds these documents are admissible, as evidence, under Section 22(4) Employment and Assistance Act (EAA). 4. Written Appeal submission dated March 6th, 2012, 5 pages, prepared by appellant's advocate covering background, legislation, discussion and conclusion. The panel accepts these documents as argument for the appellant. The ministry did not provide any further submissions and is relying on the facts in the reconsideration decision. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL# PART F Reasons for Panel Decision The issue is the reasonableness of the ministry's reconsideration decision of January 30'", 2012 wherein the ministry denied the appellant hardship assistance under Section 42.1 (1) Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) because the ministry did not consider that if hardship assistance was not provided the physical health of a person in the family unit will be in imminent danger as stated in Section 42.1 (2) EAPWDR. Legislation considered: Family units ineligible or declared ineligible in relation to convictions or judgments Section 42.1 (1) In the circumstances described in subsection (2), the minister may provide hardship assistance to a family unit that under section 14 (5) (a) [consequences for conviction or judgment in relation to Act] of the Act is not eligible for disability assistance because it includes only (a) persons convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code, this Act or the Employment and Assistance Act in relation to obtaining money under this Act or the Employment and Assistance Act by fraud or false or misleading representation, (b) persons convicted of an offence under this Act or the Employment and Assistance Act, or (c) persons in respect of whom (i) a court has given judgment in favour of the government in an action for debt for obtaining disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement under this Act or income assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement under the Employment and Assistance Act, for which he or she was not eligible, and (ii) the minister has made a declaration under section 14 (3) of the Act. (2) The minister may provide hardship assistance to a family unit described in subsection (1) if the minister considers that otherwise (a) the family unit will experience undue hardship, and (b) the physical health of a person in the family unit will be in imminent danger. In the reconsideration decision the ministry argued the appellant and his family unit are not eligible for disability assistance because in 2009 the appellant was convicted of fraud under the Criminal Code of Canada and a life time sanction was placed on his file. The ministry argued that the appellant is not eligible for hardship assistance as neither he nor his spouse met the criteria the physical health of a person in the family unit will be in imminent danger -stated in Section 42.1 (2)(b) EAPWDR. The ministry argued the criteria in both Section 42.1 (a) and (b) EAPWDR must be met for the ministry to provide hardship assistance and the appellant has provided no information to establish his spouse's physical health is in imminent danger. The ministry argued that although an updated letter from his MP dated November 29 th , 2011 stated the appellant should not be considered employable there is no mention of a life threatening need for the hardship assistance. The appellant argued that his MP has provided a Medical Report Employability form with a letter of updated information on his severe medical conditions. The appellant also argued the medical expense report supports his argument that he needs these medications to assist him with his medical conditions. The appellant argued that his wife is waiting for surgery and until she has had the surgery and recovered, she is unable to work. The appellant argued that because both he and his spouse cannot work the family unit is suffering undue hardship and do not have funds to cover their food, shelter and health costs. The panel accepts the MP's diagnosis of the appellant's medical condition and that he is not employable due to these conditions. Section 42.1 (2) EAPWDR states the ministry may consider hardship assistance if the criteria; that the family unit will experience undue hardship and, that the ohvsical health of a person in the EMT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL# family unit will be in imminent danger if the assistance is not provided. The panel finds the appellant's position is that he needs the hardship assistance to pay for their medications, pay for rent and food and the ministry's position is that the information does not establish that a person in the family unit will be in imminent danger if additional hardship assistance is not provided. The panel finds that the medical expense reports, submitted by the appellant, showed the appellant does not pay for his medical prescriptions as they are covered under a plan and that spouse's does pay for her medications. The panel finds there is no medical evidence from a medical practitioner to explain why the spouse's medication is needed. The panel finds that the only information regarding family income is a T-4 slip for the spouse's disability benefits. The panel finds there is a lack of evidence to support that the physical health of a person in the family unit will be in imminent danger if the ministry did not provide the appellant with hardship assistance and that the ministry reasonably determined that appellant had not met the criteria in Section 42. 1( 2) EAPWDR. Therefore, the Panel finds the ministry's decision was a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of the person appealing the decision and confirms the decision pursuant to Section 24(1)(b) and Section 24(2)(a) of the Employment and Assistance Act. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.